Case Problem:
David Hudesman leased commercial property housing the Red Dog Saloon to Don Harris, the saloon’s owner and operator. The lease said that Harris could assign it to any subtenant or assignee who was financially responsible and would properly care for the premises. It also required that Hudesman consent to such an assignment, but added that this consent could not be withheld unreasonably. After Harris decided to relocate his business, he was contacted by Richard Stone, president of the RAN Corporation. Stone wanted to use the property for an artifacts gallery. Harris and Stone agreed that Harris would assign the lease for $15,000, conditional on Hudesman’s approval. About this time, a politically influential man named Jerry Reinwand contacted Hudesman about the property. In exchange for Reinwand’s promise to help Hudesman secure government leases for a large building Hudesman owned, Hudesman promised Reinwand that if Harris relocated his business, Reinwand would be assigned the property. Then Hudesman told Harris that he would not consent to Harris’s assignment of the lease to RAN, and that Harris would be “looking at litigation” if he tried to assign the lease to Stone. Therefore, Harris told Stone that the deal was off, returned his $15,000 deposit, and assigned the lease to Reinwand for $15,000. RAN then sued in an effort to invalidate Reinwand’s lease and enforce its assignment contract with Harris. After RAN settled with several defendants, its main remaining claims were interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective advantage claims against Hudesman. When both parties moved for summary judgment, the trial court held for Hudesman. RAN appealed. Was RAN entitled to win on appeal?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.